|
HCAL 530/2023
[2024] HKCFI 1340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 530 of 2023
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Hatulan Ailyn Del Rosario
|
1st Applicant
|
|
Tiangco Alexxus Uno |
2nd Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
|
and
|
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The 1st applicant is the mother of the 2nd applicant, the son, aged two and a half years old.
2. The applicants jointly apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office respectively dated 30 January 2023 in respect of the 1st applicant (“the Board’s 1st Decision) and 18 August 2023 in respect of the 2nd applicant of (“the Board’s 2nd Decision”), collectively called (“the Board’s Decisions”). Their joint application relies upon the facts of the 1st applicant.
3. Since the 2nd applicant is a minor, the Court had called the applicants and they appeared before it on 6 March 2024.
4. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party; the decisions in respect of which relief is sought are the Boards’ Decisions.
5. The 1st applicant informed the Court that she had applied for legal aid and was still waiting for the result. Having considered that the application to the Director of Legal Aid (“DLA”) was made on 29 December, 2023 and there has been a lapse of more than 42 days from that date to the date of the hearing before the Court and coupled with the merits of the case, the Court decided to proceed with the hearing without adjourning it for the DLA’s result.
The applicants
6. The applicants are Filipinos. The 1st applicant last arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor on 20 November 2016 and overstayed since 5 December 2016. On 15 November 2021, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and made a non-refoulement claim. On 31 December 2021, she gave birth to her son, the 2nd applicant herein. The 1st applicant made a non-refoulement claim on behalf of the 2nd applicant on 11 October 2022 and 20 October 2022. The 1st and 2nd applicants’ claims were made on the basis that, if refouled, they would be seriously harmed or even killed by the 1st applicant’s boyfriend (“Ramil”) due to his personal grudges with the 1st applicant.
7. According to the 1st applicant, she got married in July 2012 and she separated with her husband in March 2014. Prior to this marriage, she had given birth to a son, i.e. the 2nd applicant’s elder brother. The 1st applicant first met Ramil in the Philippines on 1 April 2015. In around 2016, she met her new boyfriend (“the new boyfriend”) in Hong Kong. When she went back to the Philippines between 10 October 2016 and 5 November 2016, nothing eventful happened because Ramil was not aware of the existence of the new boyfriend.
8. Ramil discovered the 1st applicant’s relationship with the new boyfriend after she returned to Hong Kong in November 2016. He threatened to kill the 1st applicant if she returned to the Philippines without breaking up with the new boyfriend. Since then, the 1st applicant received around 10 calls per day from Ramil. After the 1st applicant changed her phone number in around January 2017, Ramil continued to send threatening messages through Facebook. Although she blocked him on Facebook subsequently, she still received threatening messages from different accounts until around November/December 2021.
9. In May 2021, the new boyfriend left the 1st applicant after discovering that she was pregnant. However, after the 1st applicant gave birth to the 2nd applicant on 31 December 2021, the new boyfriend reconciled with her and the three of them lived together from March 2022 until October 2022 when the new boyfriend was detained. The 1st applicant told her family about giving birth to the 2nd applicant, but she was unsure whether Ramil knew about this.
10. The 1st applicant kept contact with her family in the Philippines. She was informed by them on 31 December 2021 that a man was looking for her, but they had no idea whether that man was Ramil. During her last conversation with them on 28 November 2022, the 1st applicant merely wished her father a happy birthday.
11. The 1st applicant, both on behalf of herself and the 2nd applicant, were of the view that the police could not offer protection to them because they were corrupted and they could not afford bribing them. They also considered internal relocation within the Philippines not viable because they had no friends or relatives elsewhere. Furthermore, Ramil could still locate them because he had many friends/fellow drug dealers across the country.
12. Details of the story of the 1st and 2nd applicants can be found in paragraph 6 of the Director’s Decision dated 21 February 2022 (“the Director’s 1st Decision”) and paragraph 8 of the Director’s Decision dated 23 December 2022 (“the Director’s 2nd Decision”).
The Director’s 1st Decision
13. The Director considered the 1st applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
14. By way of the Director’s 1st Decision, the Director dismissed the 1st applicant’s claim. The Director found that: (i) the low frequency and extent of past ill-treatment from Ramil indicated that the 1st applicant did not face a real and foreseeable risk of harm [12]-[13]; (ii) state protection will be available to her upon her return [15]-[21]; (iii) internal relocation is viable [14], [22]-[24] and (iv) the 1st applicant’s case failed to meet any of the requirement under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk [25]-[30], Persecution risk [31]-[35] or Torture risk [36]-[38].
The Director’s 2nd Decision
15. The Director considered the 2nd applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
16. By way of the Director’s 2nd Decision, the Director dismissed the 2nd applicant’s claim. The Director found that as Ramil did not even know the birth of the 2nd applicant, the alleged risk of harm on him was merely speculative. The fact that Ramil did not escalate his actions apart from giving verbal threats and the 1st applicant failure to seek protection at her earliest opportunity also indicated that the 2nd applicant did not face a real and imminent risk [13]-[15].
17. In any event, (i) state protection will be available to the 2nd applicant upon his return [17]-[22]; (ii) internal relocation is viable [16], [23]-[24] and (iii) the 2nd applicant’s case failed to meet any of the requirement under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk [25]-[30], Persecution risk [31]-[35] or Torture risk [36]-[39].
The Board’s 1st Decision
18. The 1st applicant appealed the Director’s 1st Decision to the Board. On 19 October 2022, the Board conducted an oral hearing.
19. The Board did not find the 1st applicant to be a credible witness. Her evidence about when she knew Ramil, Ramil’s threat towards her, her family’s contact with Ramil was vague, inconsistent and lacking in detail. Although the Board accepted the 1st applicant’s relationships with Ramil as well as the new boyfriend and that she had given birth to the 2nd applicant, they were not convinced of the claimed threat from Ramil by her [73]-[91].
20. Based on the findings above, the Board was of the view that the 1st applicant’s case failed to meet any of the requirement under Torture risk, BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk or Persecution risk [11]-[20], [92]-[95].
21. The Board therefore dismissed the 1st applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s 1st decision.
The Board’s 2nd Decision
22. The 2nd applicant appealed the Director’s 2nd Decision to the Board, which was a differently constituted Board with a different adjudicator. On 21 July 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing. Before the Board, the 1st applicant was the 2nd applicant’s guardian ad litem. There was no legal representation for the applicants.
23. The 2nd applicant’s claim relied mainly on the grounds put forward by the 1st applicant. Having considered the evidence, the Board was of the view that the 2nd applicant did not face a real risk of harm because (i) Ramil only gave verbal threats and did not escalate his actions over the years; (ii) there was nothing suggesting that Ramil was aware of the existence of the 2nd applicant and (iii) the 2nd applicant’s elder brother, who is also a son of the 1st applicant with another man, had all along been in Philippines and did not suffer any harm from Ramil [46]-[49].
24. Based on the findings above, the 2nd applicant’s case failed to meet any of the requirement under Torture risk, BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk or Persecution risk [5]-[14], [45]-[60]. In any event, the country of origin information indicated that assistance can be sought from the authorities [50]-[51] and that internal relocation is also viable [61]-[64].
25. The Board therefore dismissed the 2nd applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s 2nd decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
26. The applicants filed Form 86 on 3 April 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions.
27. In the 1st applicant’s affidavit, she applied for adding her son in her application without raising any specific ground.
DISCUSSION
28. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicants’ appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
29. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the 1st applicant said that she wants extension of time to stay in Hong Kong for the benefit of her son. The father of her son is also a national of the Philippines. He is making his own refoulement claim. I specifically asked the 1st applicant if her son returns to the Philippines, whether there will be any child specific issues that she wants the Court to take into consideration. She said that her son will be exposed to the same risks as she will.
30. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”
31. In respect of the 1st applicant, the Board accepted her relationship with Ramil, her new boyfriend and her son. However, the Board rejected her evidence that Ramil had threatened her. Therefore, she will not be subjected to any harm from Ramil if she returns to the Philippines.
32. It is obvious that the 2nd applicant’s claim was separately considered by another Board. This Board found that the 1st applicant does not have any real risk of harm from Ramil. It dismissed the 2nd applicant’s appeal.
33. The applicants have raised no valid reasons to challenge the respective Boards’ Decisions. They therefore fail to show that they have any realistic prospect of success in their proposed judicial review of the Boards’ Decisions.
CONCLUSION
34. I refuse to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Boards’ Decisions.
Dated the 30th day of May 2024
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicants:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicants
on 30/5/2024
Hatulan Ailyn Del Rosario
and
Tiangco Alexxus Uno
Applicants’ ref. no:
Nil
|
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 30/5/2024
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 20047 and 21386
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2811/21 (formerly RBCZ/5000413/21) and
QA T/C 1138/22 (formerly RBCZ 5001003/22)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|